Page 30 of 125 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 2490
  1. #581
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post

    Regarding Notre Dame, I'm starting to think it has become more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you gave another fairly major team a dedicated contract and games on national network television at optimal time slots, I think they would likely attract just as many eyeballs. I think the days of Notre Dame being the default team of choice for a certain segment of the population are over. Yes, they are a major power and a major draw, but they are not the be all and end all. A good friend is a very loyal ND alum (flies from ND to at least one game a year) and a former boss' family were very major donors so I've gotten a peak under the hood and it is a non-trivial entity, but it is not worth all of the deference it gets.
    This feels accurate to me. I think Notre Dame was another good football school with a lot of history. If NBC hadn't placed them on a pedestal in 1991, they would have joined the Big Ten in the mid-90s and would be Just Another Football Team. Instead, they are the center of every conference realignment discussion for the last 30 years.

    It will be interesting - in a morbid curiosity sort of way - to see if THIS is the time their hand is forced and they have to go make friends and sit at the cafeteria table with 15-19 other football teams. But yes, I think that the Notre Dame exceptionalism (largely the fault of NBC and inflated Fighting Irish egos) has been a compounding vicious circle that has added just enough volatility to the conference structure that everyone has been anxious and insecure for most of the last 30 years.

  2. #582
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Well, despite their overinflated view of themselves, ND actually does bring value to the table. The SEC, B1G and ND are all in good shape as they are, and the two conferences can add tames (and value) as they see fit.

    Meanwhile the PAC and ACC are in scramble/react mode...I'd love to know what conversations are taking place among the league athletic directors.

  3. #583
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    -Jason "this seems like a bad move for the ACC as we are already in a better situation than the Pac-12 is... why form a partnership with someone even more troubled than we are?" Evans
    I think because if the PAC10 loses UA, ASU, CU and Utah to the BIG12, the BIG12 becomes the clear #3 in terms of money per school when they renegotiate their TV contract(s), with the ACC then fourth and last for the next 10+ years or so. Better to be in the same ballpark with two other conferences out of a power 5 than dead last out of just 4.
    Last edited by -jk; 07-06-2022 at 11:45 AM. Reason: Fix quote tag

  4. #584
    Quote Originally Posted by senkiri View Post
    I think because if the PAC10 loses UA, ASU, CU and Utah to the BIG12, the BIG12 becomes the clear #3 in terms of money per school when they renegotiate their TV contract(s), with the ACC then fourth and last for the next 10+ years or so. Better to be in the same ballpark with two other conferences out of a power 5 than dead last out of just 4.
    Well, this goes to my earlier question - is there any real value to being in conference #3 or #4? Seems likely that the answer may be "not really."

  5. #585
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wilmington
    One thing I'm hearing is,, that if it was so easy to get out of these contracts with conferences,, Texas and Oklahoma would be playing in the SEC today not 2025. Southern Cal and UCLA would leave today for the B1G , not 2024 . So the 2036 ACC contract might be enough glue to hold the ACC together.

    I have no idea what would happen if the conference dissolved .

  6. #586
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue View Post
    One thing I'm hearing is,, that if it was so easy to get out of these contracts with conferences,, Texas and Oklahoma would be playing in the SEC today not 2025. Southern Cal and UCLA would leave today for the B1G , not 2024 . So the 2036 ACC contract might be enough glue to hold the ACC together.

    I have no idea what would happen if the conference dissolved .
    But one difference is that the OK and TX contracts only have a short period to run, so its very easy to wait them out. The long ACC contracts make them more susceptible to challenge, IMO. Can they succeed? I don't know, but where there's a will there's a way, and I think CLemson, FSU and Miami will make every effort to explore the possibiity

  7. #587
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    But one difference is that the OK and TX contracts only have a short period to run, so its very easy to wait them out. The long ACC contracts make them more susceptible to challenge, IMO. Can they succeed? I don't know, but where there's a will there's a way, and I think CLemson, FSU and Miami will make every effort to explore the possibiity
    I think Miami is in for a rude awakening. They would bring nothing to the SEC.

  8. #588
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    But one difference is that the OK and TX contracts only have a short period to run, so its very easy to wait them out. The long ACC contracts make them more susceptible to challenge, IMO. Can they succeed? I don't know, but where there's a will there's a way, and I think CLemson, FSU and Miami will make every effort to explore the possibiity
    Agreed with this. Not much incentive to go balls-to-the-wall to get out of an expiring deal, but if the alternative is being locked in for 14 more years in a rapidly changing landscape, you turn over every rock possible to find an exit.

  9. #589
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Devil View Post
    I think Miami is in for a rude awakening. They would bring nothing to the SEC.
    This could well be true, I really have no idea how the SEC values some of these schools, but I do think FSU and Miami have delusions which will make them pursue football riches in the SEC.

    Of course, the whole Duke/unc thing is fascinating as well...somewhat heavier on the prestige, lower on the TV value end....in any event I don't think doing anything with the remnants of the PAC or Big 12 will enhance our fortunes in the least.
    Oregon and Washington, for example, might do something stop gap, but they've already made entreaties to the B1G so I see no long term value in joining up with them.

  10. #590
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The People's Republic of Travis County
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Here is an article discussing the rumor:

    https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/202...o-the-big-ten/

    I really do like the idea, except that the article mentions holding the championship game in Vegas which would be a fantastic business move but I would hate personally. Also seems like the Pac-12 would need to expand beyond 10 teams where the article seems to assume they stay at 10.
    I think it’s the least-bad idea to try to bolster ACC prospects, as senkiri already pointed out. And I hope our league leadership takes at least short breaks from new-HQ planning to notice that the Big XII is very likely to try the same thing:

    https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/2022/07/05/as-uncertainty-looms-over-pac-12s-future-big-12-needs-to-get-in-on-the-firesale/

    Solving the PAC 10 number shortage is straightforward: take a few of the most attractive schools from the Big XII as well.

    Is it worth all this effort to try to be the “best if the rest”? Yeah. The alternative is the wilderness.

  11. #591
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinDevil View Post
    The alternative is the wilderness.
    The Wilderness Conference at least has a cooler name than everyone else.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  12. #592
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    The Wilderness Conference at least has a cooler name than everyone else.
    And isn't bound by mathematics or geography.

  13. #593
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    The Wilderness Conference at least has a cooler name than everyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    And isn't bound by mathematics or geography.
    I mean let's really do this up. Build giant sports complexes in national parks and forests across the country. Teams rotate through playing games at different wilderness locations. Open air covered stadiums to allow wildlife to pass in and out mingling with the attendees. I really think this could work!

  14. #594
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    I mean let's really do this up. Build giant sports complexes in national parks and forests across the country. Teams rotate through playing games at different wilderness locations. Open air covered stadiums to allow wildlife to pass in and out mingling with the attendees. I really think this could work!
    As long as bison and elk can wander unencumbered across the football field, I'm in.

  15. #595
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    As long as bison and elk can wander unencumbered across the football field, I'm in.
    Can you imagine the thrill for Baylor fans to cheer their team on to victory next to an actual bear? Talk about memories that will last a lifetime!

  16. #596
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA

    Choices

    Quote Originally Posted by senkiri View Post
    -Jason "this seems like a bad move for the ACC as we are already in a better situation than the Pac-12 is... why form a partnership with someone even more troubled than we are?" Evans
    I think because if the PAC10 loses UA, ASU, CU and Utah to the BIG12, the BIG12 becomes the clear #3 in terms of money per school when they renegotiate their TV contract(s), with the ACC then fourth and last for the next 10+ years or so. Better to be in the same ballpark with two other conferences out of a power 5 than dead last out of just 4.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, to me, the ACC has three choices (and I'm not talking about drapes for the league office):

    1) Stand Pat: "We've got a got a good product, we're better than everyone outside the Big-10/SEC, and the GOR will protect us."
    2) Expand: "To be competitive with the Big-10/SEC--in terms of number of teams (for relevance), time zone spread & media markets (for networks), and dollars--we've got to have more teams, so let's add [WVU, Stanford, Name-Your-School]."
    3) Partner with Another Conference: "Best of both worlds--gives us the benefits of #2, while letting us mostly do #1."

    My heart is with Jason Evans--I long for the old ACC, I'm (generally) proud of what the ACC offers even today, and I'm frustrated by the idea we need to change that (particularly for a sport that I worry will be near death in 10-15 years, but that's another story). But I *do* worry that standing pat convinces some ACC members (looking at you Clemson, and you FSU) that they need to make a move for themselves. And if they do that, I very much worry that Duke gets left without a chair as the music screeches to a halt. I don't really see any expansion partners--whether near or far--that really move the needle in terms of attention by themselves. Stanford? Ho-hum. WVU? Yawn. But connecting the Pac-10 and ACC would be you a saleable product (round the clock live sports from both coasts because of time differences, including almost all the major coastal cities), plus it would make a bit of a "splash" and appeal to folks like me (and I think there's a lot of us out there) who don't really want any of this change. Most of the opinions I read online are like, "I don't want this but I know why it's happening." Let's give those people what they want and hope they'll sign up.

    My $0.02. But I'm so convinced that I'm out of it on this because of my distaste/distrust of football that I yield to everyone else's better-informed opinions.

  17. #597
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Can you imagine the thrill for Baylor fans to cheer their team on to victory next to an actual bear? Talk about memories that will last a lifetime!
    How about when Baylor plays Colorado? Bear vs. Buffalo, it boggles the mind.

  18. #598
    The more I think of it, the more the obvious question is this: Do the B1G/SEC want to a) dominate college sports while leaving the overall structure largely intact, or b) destroy the other power conferences and completely rebuild the landscape?

    Many people are assuming that the answer is b). And that may be the case. But, as has been discussed, that approach carries some risk. How does a 20-25 team league even operate as a conference? How do scheduling and logistics work? Once you make a bunch of schools (and their fans) irrelevant, what is the fallout? The networks would love for CFB fans to ditch their Washington State/Iowa State/Duke/NC State/etc. fandom and tune in to the new SuperLeague. But I'm not sure that will happen so easily.

    If the answer is a), the key question for those leagues is "which new schools will truly add value on a per-school basis?" It's pretty obvious how OU/UT and USC/UCLA fit that mold, but I'm not sure there are that many others. As of 2025, both leagues will have 16 members. With 16 teams, you can still operate as conference in the regular sense. Sure, scheduling is a little trickier, but it's not fundamentally different than what the ACC does with 14 football members. I could see the SEC/B1G being content to incrementally increase its dominance over the other leagues, while holding out for 1-2 key additions like ND or Clemson.

  19. #599
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by JosephReidBooks View Post
    My $0.02. But I'm so convinced that I'm out of it on this because of my distaste/distrust of football that I yield to everyone else's better-informed opinions.
    You are saying pretty much exactly what I'm thinking so you certainly not alone.

  20. #600
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    San Diego, CA

    More on Choices

    Quote Originally Posted by JosephReidBooks View Post
    Yeah, to me, the ACC has three choices (and I'm not talking about drapes for the league office):
    I should make it clear, too, that I think we have to make a fast choice without perfect information. The Big-12 is going to poach some of the Pac-12 if they can, the question is whether the Pac-12 teams see that as the best alternative or not. So if we're going to move on this, we can't take forever or the decision will be made for us. I'd rather commit a sin of acting here--partnering with the Pac-12 in something that's bold, different, etc--than wait around and find we're out of time and the decision was made by others.

Similar Threads

  1. Conference Realignment - Not Dead Yet
    By ChillinDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-20-2016, 01:50 PM
  2. The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?
    By A-Tex Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2015
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 10:30 AM
  3. Baseball Realignment
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 11:36 PM
  4. Big East Realignment
    By johnb in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-23-2011, 09:29 PM
  5. NCAA Conference Realignment
    By A-Tex Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 05:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •